Thomas Sowell: ‘Barack Obama is worse than Jimmy Carter’

I think Thomas Sowell is one of the smartest men in the world!  Watch his interview with Neil Cavuto and read the following from  via the Daily Caller.

Some conservatives will readily admit that Republican presidential nominee  Mitt Romney has his share of flaws as a candidate. But he is still much more  preferable than the alternative, President Barack Obama, according to Hoover  Institution scholar-in-residence Thomas Sowell.

“I don’t think Mitt Romney is going to be sparking riots against the American  embassies around the world,” Sowell, the author of “Intellectuals and Society: Revised and Expanded  Edition,” said said in an appearance on Fox Business Network’s “Cavuto” on Thursday. “[I]t’s not a question of whether they love you or not. The  question is whether they respect you. You know, I’m sure the Iranians did not  love Ronald Reagan.  But the fact is they’ve made it their business to get  those hostages loose before Ronald Reagan took the oath of office — in fact,  hours before Ronald Reagan took the oath of office.”

Responding to Romney’s much-publicized 47-percent remarks about those living  off the government last week, Sowell said you want to make that point with your  policy proposals and not necessarily just rhetoric, as Reagan managed to in the  1980s.

“Undoubtedly, I think that’s one of the reasons they don’t come out and say  what they want to say,” Sowell said. “I don’t think there’s anything callous  about wanting able-bodied men to work. You know, what I think is truly callous  is having a system and a set of policies that, in fact, hurts the poor.  I  mean, most — you mentioned Reagan. Now, I came across an old real copy of The  New York Times, which had the front page headlines that the black-white income  difference had narrowed slightly during the 1980s. Now, that’s the Reagan  administration.  More recently, the black-white income difference has  widened greatly under Barack Obama. And yet, Reagan is never regarded as being  someone who’s for the poor or for what not. And Obama is.”

“So the real question is not what is — how does he talk, how does he come  across,” Sowell continued. “The question is what do his policies do to people?  And I think, for example, minimum wages — I was shocked to hear Romney say he’d  be for it. Minimum wages have done enormous damage to young blacks. If you back  to the mid-1940s, the unemployment rate among black teenagers was a fraction of  what it is has been — it was a fraction in 1949, which was a recession year, of  what it has been and even in the most prosperous years since then.”

“And the difference was that in 1949, the minimum wage law had not been  upgraded since 1938. So for all practical purposes, it had been destroyed by  inflation. Once you start reinstating the minimum wage with increases, then you  begin to get to 20, 30, 40 percent unemployment rate among black teenagers. But  in the late 40s, there were years when a black 16-year-olds had unemployment  rates under 10 percent.  Now, the question is not whether you’re  empathizing or not. The question is whether your policies are ruining  people.”

Cavuto later asked Sowell if he thought Obama is like Reagan’s 1980 opponent,  little-loved former President Jimmy Carter.

“I think Barack Obama is worse than Jimmy Carter,” Sowell said. “Carter had  many foolish policies internationally as well as domestically. But I think Obama  has outdone him in both respects.”

Read more at Daily Caller

Obama gives tepid response to Embassy massacre – where is the emotion, anger, leadership?

I remember a few years ago an emotional President Obama very loudly and very angrily chastised the Cambridge Police for questioning Professor Gates regarding a possible break-in.  Where was that emotion and anger when he discussed the massacre and, in my opinion, act of terrorism at our embassy in Libya?  Where was that anger when he mentioned the loss of four American lives?  Why wasn’t the massacre designated as an act of terror?  On the eleventh anniversary of 9/11?  The 9/11 tragedy that once united our country?  The country our president is now dividing?


His lack of emotion reminds me of his laughable ‘shout out’ before announcing the ‘workplace violence’ that killed 13 soldiers and civilians at Ft. Hood.  President Barack Hussein Obama has shown us his true colors and they are not red, white and blue.

Obama has alienated Israel and once again snubbed Bibi Netanyahu while endorsing and assisting the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover in Egypt.  In “Audacity of Hope” he writes: “I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”  Well, sir, they are shifting in an ugly direction and we now know where you stand.

From Allen West Republic this statement from Congressman Allen West expresses my sentiments exactly:

“The Obama Administration touted the Arab Spring as an awakening of freedom, which we now see is a nightmare of Islamism. Even more concerning, is the initial response to these attacks last night from the embassy officials of the Obama Administration was to apologize for a Facebook video that supposedly hurt Muslim feelings.  President Obama’s policy of appeasement towards the Islamic world has manifested itself into a specter of unconscionable hatred. How anyone can believe this President is strong on national security and foreign policy is beyond my comprehension.  President Obama has clearly surpassed former President Jimmy Carter and his actions during the Iranian Embassy crisis as the weakest and most ineffective person to ever occupy the White House.”

President Obama needs to start acting like a president and leader instead of an apologetic campaigner.  Maybe he should stay in DC long enough to meet with his security council – he might actually learn something.  From Counter Jihad Report:

President Obama is touting his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, but startling new statistics suggest that national security has not necessarily been the personal priority the president makes it out to be. It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his Presidential Daily Brief just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

Even Sarah Palin came out swinging –

Apparently President Obama can’t see Egypt and Libya from his house. On the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks ever perpetrated on America, our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi were attacked by violent Islamic mobs.  The embassy actually apologized to the violent mob attacking us, and it even went so far as to chastise those who use free speech to “hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.”  We already know that President Obama likes to “speak softly” to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a “big stick” to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one.

This may well be President Obama’s ‘Jimmy Carter’ moment and his ultimate undoing.  President Ronald Reagan may not have had much experience in foreign policy before he took office but he damn well earned the respect and even admiration of foreign leaders.  He dared Gorbachev to ‘tear down this wall’ and won.  He drew a line in the sand and stood his ground.  The difference?  Ronald Reagan loved our country and everything she stands for, unconditionally.  Barack Hussein Obama – not so much!

Mitt Romney sounded much more Presidential this morning than our ‘Commander in Chief’ and he will give us the leadership we had with Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.  If we make it until November.  Do you feel safer than you did four years ago? I don’t.  Pray and pray hard – God Bless America!

Here is the movie trailer that is supposedly the impetus of the massacre but we all know that no reason is required for the barbarians at the gate!  It is not the movie, it is Anti-Americanism that triggered yesterday’s act of terrorism.  The sooner Americans realize Islamists want to kill us, the sooner we can begin to cut the political correctcrap.



Remember the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood:

– Allah is our objective.
– The Prophet is our leader.
– Qur’an is our law.
– Jihad is our way.
– Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

As the DNC begins, Ronald Reagan reminds us of the substance of the Democratic Platform! (Video)

Oh how I miss this man!  Although I love Mitt Romney, he can learn quite a bit from watching old Ronald Reagan speeches.  Reagan not only nails this one, he has the acuity to recognize the truth!   As the Democratic National Convention begins, Reagan reminds us of the substance of their platform!



I must admit I did love Romney’s delivery of Obama’s promise to ‘stop the rising oceans and heal the planet’!

Thank you Ronny and Bring it on Mitt!

Ronald Reagan was Right Again – Nails Obama Administration Goals and Failures!

By Kasey Jachim

I have been enjoying some family time and I am looking forward to spending the next week with our grandchildren who are eight and five.  In looking forward, I have to look backward – to a time of prosperity, peace and pride.  I see a future generation with none of those ideals ahead of them and I cringe.  Ronald Reagan was, in my humble opinion, one of the best presidents we have ever had, Barack Obama is the worst.

This is an excellent video that illustrates the accomplishments of the Reagan administration and failures of this administration.  The same financial, social and security threats are once again facing our nation and, unless we stand up and reclaim our liberties and freedom, Barack Obama will destroy us!



Obama Drops His Name Into the Other Presidential Biographies (Is there no limit to his narcissism?)

By  via Commentary Magazine

Many of President Obama’s fervent devotees are young enough not to have much memory of the political world before the arrival of The One. Coincidentally, Obama himself feels the same way—and the White House’s official website reflects that.


The Heritage Foundation’s Rory Cooper tweeted that Obama had casually dropped his own name into Ronald Reagan’s official biography on, claiming credit for taking up the mantle of Reagan’s tax reform advocacy with his “Buffett Rule” gimmick. My first thought was, he must be joking. But he wasn’t—it turns out Obama has added bullet points bragging about his own accomplishments to the biographical sketches of every single U.S. president since Calvin Coolidge (except, for some reason, Gerald Ford). Here are a few examples:

  • On Feb. 22, 1924 Calvin Coolidge became the first president to make a public radio address to the American people. President Coolidge later helped create the Federal Radio Commission, which has now evolved to become the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). President Obama became the first president to hold virtual gatherings and town halls using Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn, etc.
  • In a 1946 letter to the National Urban League, President Truman wrote that the government has “an obligation to see that the civil rights of every citizen are fully and equally protected.” He ended racial segregation in civil service and the armed forces in 1948. Today the Obama administration continues to strive toward upholding the civil rights of its citizens, repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, allowing people of all sexual orientations to serve openly in our armed forces.
  • President Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare signed (sic) into law in 1965—providing millions of elderly healthcare stability. President Obama’s historic health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, strengthens Medicare, offers eligible seniors a range of preventive services with no cost-sharing, and provides discounts on drugs when in the coverage gap known as the “donut hole.”
  • In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.

I imagine Bill Clinton will be especially receptive to Obama’s habit of shoehorning himself into the limelight previously occupied by others. As you can see, the bullet points make clear that while each president has done something historic or notable, Obama is carrying forward every one of those accomplishments since Coolidge. No wonder he always seems so proud of himself.

For more information click here.

Missing George W. Bush

By Alan Caruba in Tea Party Nation

English: Official photograph portrait of forme...

It’s not fashionable to speak well of Obama’s predecessor, but it grows more difficult by the day to find anything good to say about the incumbent President who recently opined that Americans are “lazy” and have “lost our ambition.” As I recall he spent his first year in office going around the world apologizing for what he deemed America’s past sins and exceptualism.

No, I am talking about George W. Bush, often referred to as Bush 43. I think historians are going to treat him more kindly than might seem likely to some at this point almost three years since the current President took the oath of office in January 2009. Bush 43, with Trumanesque self-discipline and modesty, went home and has not spoken out about his successor’s decisions in office, neither to criticize nor praise. That’s how presidents are expected to behave.

Bush43, however, did begin writing a memoir of his eight years in office called “Decision Points” and, when it was first published, it became a bestseller. It is available now in a softcover edition from Broadway Books at $18.00, but already discounted to an affordable twelve dollars and change on As a longtime book reviewer, I received the softcover edition and have been reading it in lieu of watching the horrid stuff that passes for television these days.

I begin with a confession that, throughout his two terms, I had a good opinion of George W. Bush. I disagreed with his No Child Left Behind approach to education and I thought that adding a prescription benefit to an already broke Medicare was unwise. I had some qualms about the creation of the super agency, Homeland Security, and the Patriot Act. By the time the “surge” in Iraq arrived, I thought it was a bad idea to have invaded even though I understood the threat that Saddam Hussein posed in the region. As it turned out, other Middle East dictators began to fall like dominoes in the wake of the U.S. action.

Bush’s book surprised me. I had no idea of the depth of his religious faith and how it sustained him through the trial of 9/11 and other difficult times such as the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. This is a man who begins his day by reading the Bible. Frankly, I found that comforting.

I looked upon his presidency as being part of the “family business.” His grandfather, Prescott Bush had been a U.S. Senator from Connecticut. His father, George H.W. Bush had served as Ronald Reagan’s Vice President before being elected President in his own right. What comes through George W’s memoir is his deep love for his parents, his brothers, and his own family, wife Laura and his twin girls.

The memoir is not some coldly intellectual analysis, but rather is infused with his own emotions as he dealt with crisis, the greatest of which—9/11—turned him into a wartime president. I think he met the challenge of the first attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor and one that took the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans, including first responders.

When Bush visited the site of Ground Zero in New York amidst the still smoking ruins, a soot-covered firefighter “looked me in square in the eye and said, ‘George, find the bastards who did this and kill them.’ It’s not often that people call the president by his first name. But that was fine with me. This was personal.”

What distinguishes “Decision Points” is the fact that it is devoted to explaining why he did what he did during his two terms. We need to remind ourselves of the times in which those decisions were occurring and, perhaps, to remember how frightened the nation was in the wake of 9/11.

That fear gave way quickly to the leadership Bush provided; his decision to invade Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban and al Qaeda, the creation of “Gitmo” as a place to hold non-state combatants and the reorganization of government intelligence and law enforcement agencies to better coordinate their ability to share information. In the eight years that followed, no further attacks were successful.

That stands in contrast with President Obama’s announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed. It was filled with “I did this” and “I did that” and never once mentioned that it was possible only because of the machinery that George W. Bush had put in place. Indeed, Obama had wanted to close Gitmo and try the planner of 9/11 in a civil court with all the protections the U.S. Constitution provides Americans. Both proposals were abandoned after widespread opposition.

Bush’s second term ended under a cloud from the housing mortgage crisis that required extraordinary efforts to avoid the collapse of the nation’s financial system. It obscured Bush’s tax cut, signed into law in May 2003, that led to economic growth for 46 consecutive months and resulted in an unemployment rate that averaged only 5.3 percent during his presidency.

There is much more that can and will be credited to George W. Bush for his two terms and, given the failure of the present administration to reverse the recession, to turn the tide on unemployment, to have increased the national debt to a level that exceeds all previous presidents in just three years, and to have been the first to see the nation’s credit rating downgraded, the contrast is too great to ignore.

Elections do have consequences. In both cases, the elections of George W. Bush were “squeakers” that might have put Al Gore or John Kerry in the White House. I think America dodged a bullet, but then forgot how important it is to put someone in office who will protect the nation and grow its economy. 2012 will give us another opportunity to do that.

Attack on U.S. Sovereignty – The Law of the Sea Treaty

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh in Canada Free Press

United Nations Agenda 21 policy: National sovereignty is deemed a social injustice. United Nations treaties and programs want to force “social justice” through socialist/communist redistribution of wealth.

Adopted in 1982, The Law of the Sea Treaty was initially called the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) and aimed to implement a set of detailed rules that would control the oceans, replacing the 1958 (UNCLOS I) and 1960 (UNCLOS II) United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea. The European Community and 162 countries have joined the Convention.

“Negotiated in the 1970s, the Law of the Sea treaty was heavily influenced by the New International Economic Order, a set of economic principles first formally advanced at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) in the 1970s and 1980s,” calling for redistribution of wealth to the benefit of third world countries.

President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982 because it demanded technology and wealth transfer from developed countries to developing nations as well as adopting regulations and laws to control oceanic pollution.  Jurisdictional limits on oceans included a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclusive economic zone limit.  The treaty would regulate economic “activity on, over, and beneath the ocean’s surface.”

In spite of the many pros and cons, in March 2004, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended by unanimous vote that the U.S. sign the treaty.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), member of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Water and Power, opposes the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) on several grounds, including the loss of National sovereignty.

In order to ratify a treaty, the President needs a two-thirds majority vote from the Senate. According to Sen. Mike Lee, treaties must represent U.S. economic and security interests.  Our economy and navigation rights have not been affected by the fact that we chose to reject the treaty. He finds the loss of National sovereignty and mandatory dispute resolution included in the Law of the Sea treaty quite troubling.

The International Seabed Authority (“the Authority”) has the power to distribute “international royalties” to developing and landlocked nations. “So hypothetically, a U.S. company that has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing clean and safe deep-sea mining machinery would be forced to give a portion of its profits to countries such as Somalia, Sudan, and Cuba – all considered to be developing nations by ‘the Authority.’” (Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah)

Sen. Mark Begich, D-Arkansas, chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, supports the ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST). He believes that this treaty provides rules to handle future underwater minerals, gas, and oil exploration and shipping on new water routes opened by receding Arctic icepack. His support is predicated on the premise that the Arctic icepack melt will be a constant in the future.

According to Sen. Mark Begich, “The United States is the world’s leading maritime power. Only by ratifying the treaty can it protect freedom of navigation to advance our commercial and national security interests, claim extended continental-shelf areas in the Arctic – an area believed to be twice the size of California – as other nations are already doing, and use its provisions to protect the marine environment, manage fisheries and appoint Americans to help resolve disputes.” (The American Legion Magazine)

According to the Heritage Foundation, innocent passage through an area is already protected under “multiple independent treaties, as well as traditional international maritime law.”  Few countries deny passage to the U.S., given its naval superiority.  Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, “intelligence and submarine maneuvers in territorial waters would be restricted and regulated.” It is thus not in the national security interest of the United States to ratify this treaty.

The treaty requires policies that regulate deep-sea mining, requires rules and regulations to control and prevent marine pollution, and requires the control of corporations who cannot bring lawsuits independently. They must depend on the country of origin to plead their case in front of the United Nations agency.

“Some proponents of the treaty believe that it will establish a system of property rights for mineral extraction in deep sea beds, making the investment in such ventures more attractive.”

President Reagan objected to the Principle of the “Common Heritage of Mankind,” which dictates that marine resources belong to all mankind and cannot be exploited by one nation.

To spread the wealth, the UN “Authority” must regulate and exploit mineral resources by asking companies to pay an application fee of half a million dollars, recently changed to $250,000, and to reserve an extra site for the Authority to “utilize its own mining efforts.”

A corporation must also pay an annual fee of $1 million and up to 7% of its annual profits and share its mining and navigational technology. Mining permits are granted or withheld by the “Authority” which is composed of mostly developing countries. (Heritage Foundation)

Any kind of maritime dispute, fisheries, environmental protection, navigation, and research, must be resolved under this treaty through mandatory dispute resolution by the UN court or tribunal which limits autonomy. Disputes should be resolved by U.S. courts. (Heritage Foundation)

The United States provisional participation in the Laws of the Sea treaty expired in 1998. Should we consider the ratification of another treaty that has the potential to further chip away at our National sovereignty?

The GOP has recently passed (January 14, 2012) a resolution exposing United Nations Agenda 21 as “a comprehensive plan of extreme environmentalism, social engineering, and global political control that was initiated at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED).”

“According to the United Nations Agenda 21 policy, National sovereignty is deemed a social injustice.” United Nations treaties and programs want to force “social justice” through socialist/communist redistribution of wealth from developed nations like the U.S. to third world countries.

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Most recent columns

“Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh ( Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Romanian Conservative), author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her book, “Echoes of Communism, is available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, religion, social engineering, and confiscation of property. Visit her website,